niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: It's unlikely they made any money from the sales of "Man of Constant Sorrow" that happened during the movie. When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work. Most likely they were signing the rights to the recording over to the station owner in exchange for a quick payment. The "band" themselves had no idea they were popular until they sang at Stoke's fund raiser, as evidence by the claim that "no one will believe we're a real band", and the shock at the crowd's reaction to their song. We don't have any idea what happened to them after the end of the movie, but it would be reasonable to expect they eventually got signed to a record contract. The governor would probably have wanted them to keep recording music, if nothing else, so he could continue to ride their popularity. That contract would have covered any future recordings; it's also possible they could negotiate royalties for future sales of their hit song, and the station owner would cave in to keep them happy. But that's just speculation, since the last we know of the boys they're going to go work for the governor.  <sep>  Q: Who is the radio owner? A: Stoke  Q: Did the actual band ever get a contract signed? A: When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work  Q: What was the name of the song? A: Man of Constant Sorrow  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the name of the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The comic states that the Radioactive spider was created by experimenting on Peter Parker's blood (by Oscorp). However, there is no mention of this in the movie whatsoever. There are two possibilities: 1) That the spider in the film was also part of some lab experiments based on the blood of Peter Parker of that universe (the one who dies). 2) That the spider came from another universe. The question then is "how did the spider get to the universe before the portal was opened?". The answer to that would be "The spider came from another universe and traveled back in time just like Gwen did". However, to keep things simple, we can assume that Oscorp was up to no good and were experimenting with Peter's blood and Miles got bit by it. We already know that happened in the comics.  <sep>  Q: Which dimension did the radioactive spider which bit Miles come from?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Luke had discovered that his father was a Jedi and that he had some skill with the force from his time with Obi-Wan. He was advised by Ghost Obi-Wan to seek out Yoda to further his training. So he seeks out Yoda for training. Leia on the other hand does not know of her parentage, had not experimented with any Force training and had no time with Obi-Wan at all. She does not even really understand the Force, never mind seeking out a master for her training. I think it is also clear that Leia is not as inherently strong with the force as Luke. Vader has her in captivity, even tortures her and doesn't seem to sense her latent abilities. Luke, despite very brief training on the flight to Alderaan, is quickly identified by Vader as being strong, even when he is just another pilot in the battle over the Death Star. I think Yoda and Obi-Wan view Leia as a backup, to be used if Luke failed, and that to keep her parentage secret from her, Vader and the Emperor was the best way to keep her safe.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Yoda train Princess Leia as a Jedi? A: Leia on the other hand does not know of her parentage  Q: Didn't he say that the force was strong with her as well? A: I think it is also clear that Leia is not as inherently strong with the force as Luke  Q: Why is it not as strong with her? A: Vader has her in captivity, even tortures he  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does Leia feel about this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean? A: The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about another meaning?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean? A: The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free  Q: What about another meaning? A: You cannot wash away your sins  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there any others?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean? A: The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free  Q: What about another meaning? A: You cannot wash away your sins  Q: Are there any others? A: The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wait, in what way would there be merit?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the role? is anything curious thing is there?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character  Q: what is the role? is anything curious thing is there? A: The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: oh! then what about the main theme of his movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character  Q: what is the role? is anything curious thing is there? A: The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig  Q: oh! then what about the main theme of his movie? A: Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: oh! then what about the end of the story?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though.  <sep>  Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character  Q: what is the role? is anything curious thing is there? A: The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig  Q: oh! then what about the main theme of his movie? A: Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though  Q: oh! then what about the end of the story? A: This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: do you personally know about bond?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The balance of power had shifted considerably since the first set of quotes. King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king. Unlike his wild card of an elder brother, Tommen is gentler and more prone to manipulation by his new bride. The Lannisters impeccable image has also been shattered. They failed to prevent the assassination of their king in the midst of his own wedding day, and the suspected assassin is the king's Lannister uncle. Not only do they look incompetent, they are divided among themselves. On the other hand, the Tyrells' situation is much stronger now. Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger, and she knows that the assassination was orchestrated in part by her own family. In Margaery's eyes, the Lannisters look disoriented and lost. Putting on a show trial for one of their own, whom she knows is innocent of any wrongdoing. Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished.  <sep>  Q: What was Margaery's motivation to call Cersei 'sister' again?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The balance of power had shifted considerably since the first set of quotes. King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king. Unlike his wild card of an elder brother, Tommen is gentler and more prone to manipulation by his new bride. The Lannisters impeccable image has also been shattered. They failed to prevent the assassination of their king in the midst of his own wedding day, and the suspected assassin is the king's Lannister uncle. Not only do they look incompetent, they are divided among themselves. On the other hand, the Tyrells' situation is much stronger now. Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger, and she knows that the assassination was orchestrated in part by her own family. In Margaery's eyes, the Lannisters look disoriented and lost. Putting on a show trial for one of their own, whom she knows is innocent of any wrongdoing. Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished.  <sep>  Q: What was Margaery's motivation to call Cersei 'sister' again? A: Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why has it been diminished?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The balance of power had shifted considerably since the first set of quotes. King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king. Unlike his wild card of an elder brother, Tommen is gentler and more prone to manipulation by his new bride. The Lannisters impeccable image has also been shattered. They failed to prevent the assassination of their king in the midst of his own wedding day, and the suspected assassin is the king's Lannister uncle. Not only do they look incompetent, they are divided among themselves. On the other hand, the Tyrells' situation is much stronger now. Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger, and she knows that the assassination was orchestrated in part by her own family. In Margaery's eyes, the Lannisters look disoriented and lost. Putting on a show trial for one of their own, whom she knows is innocent of any wrongdoing. Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished.  <sep>  Q: What was Margaery's motivation to call Cersei 'sister' again? A: Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished  Q: Why has it been diminished? A: King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did Margaery marry Joffrey or Tommen?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The balance of power had shifted considerably since the first set of quotes. King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king. Unlike his wild card of an elder brother, Tommen is gentler and more prone to manipulation by his new bride. The Lannisters impeccable image has also been shattered. They failed to prevent the assassination of their king in the midst of his own wedding day, and the suspected assassin is the king's Lannister uncle. Not only do they look incompetent, they are divided among themselves. On the other hand, the Tyrells' situation is much stronger now. Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger, and she knows that the assassination was orchestrated in part by her own family. In Margaery's eyes, the Lannisters look disoriented and lost. Putting on a show trial for one of their own, whom she knows is innocent of any wrongdoing. Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished.  <sep>  Q: What was Margaery's motivation to call Cersei 'sister' again? A: Whatever power Cersei held over Margaery has now been diminished  Q: Why has it been diminished? A: King Joffrey is dead, and his younger brother Tommen is now king  Q: Who did Margaery marry Joffrey or Tommen? A: Tommen is already wrapped around Margaery's pretty little finger  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Which person is a Tyrell?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy.  <sep>  Q: What do you think the significance of the water is?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy.  <sep>  Q: Why does Wolverine say these words when burying this person?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy.  <sep>  Q: Why does wolverine say "It's got water, and it's got water"?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy.  <sep>  Q: What do you think the significance of the water is? A: Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How dangerous do you think Professor X powers are when he loses his control?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened at the end of the game?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money  Q: Who did the CIA want? A: Le Chiffre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the CIA agents name?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money  Q: Who did the CIA want? A: Le Chiffre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the CIA catch Le Chiffre?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money  Q: Who did the CIA want? A: Le Chiffre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did things proceed?
Output: No
CONTEXT: In the books it is yet to be discovered if he is brought back to life for what greater purpose. But one thing is for sure, it isn't just one thing he did, but many. Probably in the books he is the one who kills the Night King, because it was clear from David Benioff's interview that they wanted to subvert expectations, they wanted someone who was not Jon to kill the Night King. So I think in the books he came back to life for also killing the NK. He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things. Defeated Ramsay, showed the World that the dead are coming, prepared for the Long Night and battle of Winterfell. Successfully defeating NK would not have been possible without him. What the Lord of Light could have wanted? Well, we don't even know what LoL was, didn't know what his intentions were, who were his enemy but one thing we know for sure, all victories inevitably came at a cost. To bring a new World, Jon Snow had to stab his love in the belly. So there we have the Azor Ahai theory jumping in, not totally similar but was a good deal.  <sep>  Q: What was the purpose of bringing back Jon?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the books it is yet to be discovered if he is brought back to life for what greater purpose. But one thing is for sure, it isn't just one thing he did, but many. Probably in the books he is the one who kills the Night King, because it was clear from David Benioff's interview that they wanted to subvert expectations, they wanted someone who was not Jon to kill the Night King. So I think in the books he came back to life for also killing the NK. He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things. Defeated Ramsay, showed the World that the dead are coming, prepared for the Long Night and battle of Winterfell. Successfully defeating NK would not have been possible without him. What the Lord of Light could have wanted? Well, we don't even know what LoL was, didn't know what his intentions were, who were his enemy but one thing we know for sure, all victories inevitably came at a cost. To bring a new World, Jon Snow had to stab his love in the belly. So there we have the Azor Ahai theory jumping in, not totally similar but was a good deal.  <sep>  Q: What was the purpose of bringing back Jon? A: He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are some of the reasons?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the books it is yet to be discovered if he is brought back to life for what greater purpose. But one thing is for sure, it isn't just one thing he did, but many. Probably in the books he is the one who kills the Night King, because it was clear from David Benioff's interview that they wanted to subvert expectations, they wanted someone who was not Jon to kill the Night King. So I think in the books he came back to life for also killing the NK. He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things. Defeated Ramsay, showed the World that the dead are coming, prepared for the Long Night and battle of Winterfell. Successfully defeating NK would not have been possible without him. What the Lord of Light could have wanted? Well, we don't even know what LoL was, didn't know what his intentions were, who were his enemy but one thing we know for sure, all victories inevitably came at a cost. To bring a new World, Jon Snow had to stab his love in the belly. So there we have the Azor Ahai theory jumping in, not totally similar but was a good deal.  <sep>  Q: What was the purpose of bringing back Jon? A: He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think it was to kill Daenerys?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?"
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you like the best about Game of thrones?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the recent movie you watched?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does  Q: What do you like the best about Game of thrones? A: Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who is your favorite character in game of thrones?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does  Q: What do you like the best about Game of thrones? A: Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you watch all the episodes of game of thrones?
Output: No
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series? A: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think it might mislead the books fan into thinking the show is only about the first book?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series? A: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person  Q: Do you think it might mislead the books fan into thinking the show is only about the first book? A: the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok, so fans of the book series should realize it's based off the whole series and not just the first book, correct?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series? A: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about fans of the book though?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The rights issue is still fairly murky. If a program or film is deemed 'newsworthy' (ie documentary) then less rights need to be secured (although privacy copyrights are still in effect and do need to cleared before presentation). Biopics like Ed Wood, despite being based on a real person, are considered 'fictional entertainment' and thus do not require clearance from the family unless real photos/sounds are used. In some cases, biopics can be halted - for example, the Amy Winehouse project that has been stalled because her father has refused to release the rights to her music.  <sep>  Q: I think they should based on movies being about their life. do you agree?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The rights issue is still fairly murky. If a program or film is deemed 'newsworthy' (ie documentary) then less rights need to be secured (although privacy copyrights are still in effect and do need to cleared before presentation). Biopics like Ed Wood, despite being based on a real person, are considered 'fictional entertainment' and thus do not require clearance from the family unless real photos/sounds are used. In some cases, biopics can be halted - for example, the Amy Winehouse project that has been stalled because her father has refused to release the rights to her music.  <sep>  Q: Do the biopic-ized people get paid for being represented in their respective biopic movies?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The rights issue is still fairly murky. If a program or film is deemed 'newsworthy' (ie documentary) then less rights need to be secured (although privacy copyrights are still in effect and do need to cleared before presentation). Biopics like Ed Wood, despite being based on a real person, are considered 'fictional entertainment' and thus do not require clearance from the family unless real photos/sounds are used. In some cases, biopics can be halted - for example, the Amy Winehouse project that has been stalled because her father has refused to release the rights to her music.  <sep>  Q: I think they should based on movies being about their life. do you agree? A: The rights issue is still fairly murky  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I mean if someone did a movie about your life, would you want to get paid for it?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Well, what we know is that Bill was a former student of Hattori Hanzo. What actually happened between Bill and Hanzo is not clear from the movie. There is also no mention of it on Kill Bill Wikia. However we can assume that Bill learnt the art of swordsmanship from Hanzo and used it for evil. This must have infuriated Hanzo. This kind of stuff is a recurring theme in many movies where a disciple learns a skill from a master and turns again humanity to use those skills, hence infuriating the master. So to me, this seems the possible reason for Hanzo's anger.  <sep>  Q: What did Bill do to make Hanzo mad?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well, what we know is that Bill was a former student of Hattori Hanzo. What actually happened between Bill and Hanzo is not clear from the movie. There is also no mention of it on Kill Bill Wikia. However we can assume that Bill learnt the art of swordsmanship from Hanzo and used it for evil. This must have infuriated Hanzo. This kind of stuff is a recurring theme in many movies where a disciple learns a skill from a master and turns again humanity to use those skills, hence infuriating the master. So to me, this seems the possible reason for Hanzo's anger.  <sep>  Q: What did Bill do to make Hanzo mad? A: Bill learnt the art of swordsmanship from Hanzo and used it for evil. This must have infuriated Hanzo  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was the black mamba friends with Hanzo?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well, what we know is that Bill was a former student of Hattori Hanzo. What actually happened between Bill and Hanzo is not clear from the movie. There is also no mention of it on Kill Bill Wikia. However we can assume that Bill learnt the art of swordsmanship from Hanzo and used it for evil. This must have infuriated Hanzo. This kind of stuff is a recurring theme in many movies where a disciple learns a skill from a master and turns again humanity to use those skills, hence infuriating the master. So to me, this seems the possible reason for Hanzo's anger.  <sep>  Q: What did Bill do to make Hanzo mad? A: Bill learnt the art of swordsmanship from Hanzo and used it for evil. This must have infuriated Hanzo  Q: Was the black mamba friends with Hanzo? A: So to me, this seems the possible reason for Hanzo's anger  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What sort of sword was made by Hanzo?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They get affected by lightning just like anyone else would be - they're still human (ok, metahuman). The lightning strike PLUS the dark matter released by the particle accelerator explosion is what turned Barry into the Flash and gave him access to the Speed Force. As we've seen before with other metas who harness electrical powers, Barry can still take an electrical hit and be hurt by it, and lightning is just a large electrical charge. So in summary, yes - if he's hit by lightning it's perfectly understandable that his heart might be stopped by it.  <sep>  Q: Why does lightning hit affects speedsters?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They get affected by lightning just like anyone else would be - they're still human (ok, metahuman). The lightning strike PLUS the dark matter released by the particle accelerator explosion is what turned Barry into the Flash and gave him access to the Speed Force. As we've seen before with other metas who harness electrical powers, Barry can still take an electrical hit and be hurt by it, and lightning is just a large electrical charge. So in summary, yes - if he's hit by lightning it's perfectly understandable that his heart might be stopped by it.  <sep>  Q: Why does lightning hit affects speedsters? A: As we've seen before with other metas who harness electrical powers, Barry can still take an electrical hit and be hurt by it, and lightning is just a large electrical charge  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How would an injured Flash be resuscitated if they were struck by lightening ?
Output: Yes